2010 (3) TMI 1110 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Deductibility of Share Application Money Interest & Prior Period Expenditure in Tax Assessment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Versus G.M.R. Industries Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in the case, allowing the interest on Share Application Money (SAM) as a deductible expense and including prior ... - Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 3.95 crores being interest on share application money (SAM).2. Deletion of prior period expenditure of Rs. 1.49 crores while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act.Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 3.95 Crores Being Interest on Share Application MoneyThe assessee company had debited Rs. 395.87 lakhs as interest on SAM pending allotment of preference shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this interest, arguing that SAM is not a borrowed amount and does not create a debtor-creditor relationship. The AO cited various legal precedents to support the view that interest on SAM should be treated as capital expenditure and not allowable under sections 36(1)(iii) or 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.The CIT(A) reversed the AO's decision, accepting the assessee's argument that SAM should be treated as a borrowing until the allotment of shares, creating a debtor-creditor relationship. The CIT(A) relied on the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and guidelines from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), which treat SAM as a borrowing pending allotment. The CIT(A) also noted that the interest paid on SAM was related to the business activity of earning call option fees from investments made with the SAM.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the relationship between the assessee and the share applicant was that of debtor and creditor until the allotment of shares. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in Winner Estates (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, which held that share application money becomes a debt only when shares cannot be allotted and the amount has to be returned. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Seth R Dalmia vs. CIT, which allowed interest as a deductible expense when it was wholly paid for earning income.Issue 2: Deletion of Prior Period Expenditure of Rs. 1.49 Crores While Computing Book Profit u/s 115JBThe AO added back Rs. 1.49 crores of prior period expenditure to the book profit under section 115JB, arguing that only the profit above the line should be considered for computing book profit. The AO relied on the decision in Sree Rajendra Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT, which held that prior period expenses charged to the P&L appropriation account cannot be deducted from the profit of the year for the purpose of book profit.The CIT(A) disagreed with the AO, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that the AO does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to section 115J. The CIT(A) also referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Khaitan Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., which held that prior period items and extraordinary items should be included in the determination of net profit or loss as per the prescribed Accounting Standards.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that prior period expenses should be included in the determination of net profit or loss as per the Accounting Standards and the Companies Act. The Tribunal concluded that the AO was not justified in adding back the prior period expenditure to the book profit under section 115JB.ConclusionThe Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The interest on SAM was allowed as a deductible expense, and the prior period expenditure was included in the computation of book profit under section 115JB.